What is Your Political Opinion of "V for Vendetta"?

[Seth]

I would also say anyone carrying a gun isnt a civilian

That would make Seeth a military.

Fair 'nuff.

Don't think you can declare war on seth through it does seem to have declared it on humanity

No, just Marxists and Progressives, and perhaps some socialists who can't find the apostrophe key or the shift-key, and they aren't really human anyway, so no great loss.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Progress is a bad thing, ain't it?

[Seth]

Progress is a bad thing, ain't it?

No, Progressivism is a bad thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "progress" and "Progressivism" are remotely the same thing. "Progressivism" is a term of art concocted to make what is in fact liberal fascism sound all warm and fuzzy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Progress is a bad thing, ain't it?

No, Progressivism is a bad thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "progress" and "Progressivism" are remotely the same thing. "Progressivism" is a term of art concocted to make what is in fact liberal fascism sound all warm and fuzzy.

"liberal fascism"

[Ian]

Progress is a bad thing, ain't it?

No, Progressivism is a bad thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "progress" and "Progressivism" are remotely the same thing. "Progressivism" is a term of art concocted to make what is in fact liberal fascism sound all warm and fuzzy.

"liberal fascism"

What do you get when you cross Oxycodone and a moron?

Rush Limbaugh. Er, I mean an oxymoron.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Progress is a bad thing, ain't it?

No, Progressivism is a bad thing. Don't make the mistake of thinking that "progress" and "Progressivism" are remotely the same thing. "Progressivism" is a term of art concocted to make what is in fact liberal fascism sound all warm and fuzzy.

"liberal fascism"

What do you get when you cross Oxycodone and a moron?

Rush Limbaugh. Er, I mean an oxymoron.

I saw a bumpersticker here that said, "Make February 30th Rush Limbaugh Day!"

[Seth]

Of course it was actually author Jonah Goldberg, not Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term "liberal fascism" in his book of the same name, which clearly makes the case (with references and footnotes) that most fascists are indeed from the liberal side of the political spectrum.

But I wouldn't expect mindless, drooling idiots filled with unreasoning hatred of anything to the right of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin to understand that distinction.

[Ian]

You're talking about left-right economics. Liberalism and authoritarianism (what you're calling fascism) are on opposite ends of an entirely different spectrum.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Of course it was actually author Jonah Goldberg, not Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term "liberal fascism" in his book of the same name, which clearly makes the case (with references and footnotes) that most fascists are indeed from the liberal side of the political spectrum.

And you believe him because you are predisposed to do so. No surprise there.

But I wouldn't expect mindless, drooling idiots filled with unreasoning hatred of anything to the right of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin to understand that distinction.

All kinds of mindless, drooling idiots running around, Seeth.

[Seth]

You're talking about left-right economics. Liberalism and authoritarianism (what you're calling fascism) are on opposite ends of an entirely different spectrum.

Not really. Politics is not a linear thing, it's a circular thing.

Imagine a ring hanging in the sky with a bead that can move freely on the ring that represents the political position of a society. At the top of the ring is a gap that the bead will fall through if pushed too far in either direction.

At the left end of the ring, immediately adjacent to the gap, is liberal fascism, at the right end, in the same relative position, is corporate fascism. Descending from either extreme moves one through the political spectrum, but at the bottom is Libertarianism. And the "gravity" of the natural desire for human freedom tends to draw the culture towards the bottom unless it's pushed up either side of the ring by tyrants and despots of one ilk or another.

At the very top, dividing liberal fascism from corporate fascism lies a gap, and when the bead is pushed too far in either direction, it falls through the gap. In the center of the circle is anarchy. If the bead falls into anarchy, it eventually falls through that void and ends up at the bottom of the ring, at Libertarianism, where the entire exercise begins again.

So both liberal (socialist) fascism and corporate fascism are very little different from one another in practice, and pushed too far into either, a society will collapse into chaos and anarchy, and eventually go back to individual liberty and small government because that is the natural inclination of human beings; not to be controlled excessively by anyone, but to be free to live their lives as they see fit, so long as they do not harm or defraud others.

[Seth]

Of course it was actually author Jonah Goldberg, not Rush Limbaugh, who coined the term "liberal fascism" in his book of the same name, which clearly makes the case (with references and footnotes) that most fascists are indeed from the liberal side of the political spectrum.

And you believe him because you are predisposed to do so. No surprise there.

I don't "believe" him, I agree with him, based on his careful reasoning, exceedingly extensive research, and his documenting of the actual words of those whom he cites as his examples proving his thesis. Nobody I know of has successfully refuted his claims, and the best they can do is to use Alinsky-style smears and personal attacks rather than providing an actual counter-argument that has any credibility.

But I wouldn't expect mindless, drooling idiots filled with unreasoning hatred of anything to the right of Karl Marx and Josef Stalin to understand that distinction.

All kinds of mindless, drooling idiots running around, Seeth.

Yup, but with socialists, it's universal, whereas with Libertarians, they are few and far between.

[Magicziggy]

I like the ring. It's poetic. I'll need time to workout why it's bullshit or why it's truth. For the moment, it's just hanging there being poetic.

I think it's closer to truth than bullshit though.
Although maybe the spectrum of bullshit and truth is a ring as well.
Ouch, my head hurts.

[MrJonno]

People don't tend towards 'individual liberty' whatever that means, they tend towards organisation and social structure. We're closer to bees and ants than lone wolves

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't "believe" him, I agree with him, based on his careful reasoning, exceedingly extensive research, and his documenting of the actual words of those whom he cites as his examples proving his thesis. Nobody I know of has successfully refuted his claims, and the best they can do is to use Alinsky-style smears and personal attacks rather than providing an actual counter-argument that has any credibility.

[Seth]

People don't tend towards 'individual liberty' whatever that means, they tend towards organisation and social structure. We're closer to bees and ants than lone wolves

You mistake the concept of individual liberty as being "lone wolf." It's not. People tend towards organization and social structure in order to secure the blessings of liberty to the maximum extent possible for each person consisted with ordered liberty. They band together for, initially, self-defense against the forces of nature and chaos, but the purpose is to maximize the ability of each individual to live a satisfactory life free from tyranny.

Nobody bands together with a tyrant because they want to be oppressed or enslaved, they join with a tyrant in hopes of getting more freedom than someone else by virtue of aligning with a strongman who can protect THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY over that of others.

Even socialism utilizes the fiction that it's "freeing" the working man from the oppression of the bourgeoisie merchant class (without of course realizing that the bourgeoisie merchant class are the capital-holders and investors that give the working man a job...). Marx did not say "enslave yourself to society and work for its benefit not your own!" No, he said "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," which is an expression of maximizing individual liberty (to meet one's needs) by working together for the common good.

So, once again, as usual, your argument is shit.